When the City of Little Rock got a FOIA request for an employee's personnel file and emails, which redactions on her job applications, salary memo, and performance reviews were correct?

Subject

Whether the City of Little Rock's proposed release and redactions of Lela Chism's personnel and evaluation records complied with the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act.

Plain-English summary

A requester asked Little Rock for Chism's personnel file, including her employment application, and official-business emails and attachments from the previous three years. The city planned to disclose certain employee records with redactions. Chism asked the AG to review that decision and objected to disclosure of her job references' contact details. She also questioned whether the request was “of public interest” in light of the requester's intent.

The AG found the planned release only partly consistent with FOIA. Records confirming employment, hire dates, education, training, titles, contracts, employee names, salaries, and payroll information are generally personnel records subject to disclosure. Even when such a record is releasable, exempt pieces of information may need to be redacted.

The city's May 10, 2021 salary-adjustment memorandum treated employees inconsistently. The AG said names, job positions, salary information, and equity scores were not exempt and should not be redacted for the other employees. Numbers in the “employee” column should be redacted if they were employee numbers or identification codes. The “Immediate Supervisor Code” should also be redacted if it was such a number or code. The AG could not decide whether all proposed redactions were correct because he had only redacted copies.

The job applications and résumés were personnel records that should be disclosed after proper redactions. Reference names on them could not be redacted. For a reference who was a nonelected city public employee, personal contact information contained in employer records should be redacted. A private-sector reference's personal contact information, such as an address or phone number, was not exempt under FOIA. The AG also noted inconsistent “Person ID” redactions across the forms and said the custodian should review them.

The performance evaluation and development forms were employee-evaluation records. All four conditions for their disclosure had to be met: suspension or termination, administrative finality, relevance to that decision, and compelling public interest. The AG said the first two were not met, so the forms should be withheld. He also said the requester's intent and motives were generally irrelevant to whether public records had to be disclosed.

What this means for you

Public records custodians

The opinion separates personnel records from employee-evaluation records because each has a different release test. For the records reviewed here, the AG said the salary memorandum's employee names, positions, salary information, and equity scores should be disclosed; employee identification codes should be redacted. He asked the custodian to review the forms for consistent redactions, while acknowledging he could not verify all redactions without unredacted copies.

Public employees and job references

The opinion says a reference's name on an application or résumé is subject to disclosure. Whether contact information is exempt depends on the reference: personal contact details of a nonelected city public employee in employer records should be redacted, while the cited FOIA exemption does not protect a private-sector reference's contact details. The AG said concern about the requester's motive was not a basis to withhold otherwise disclosable records.

FOIA requesters

The city planned to release some administrative records and application materials, but the AG said the performance review documents should be withheld. The opinion did not review the requested emails; its findings concern the employee records provided to the AG. The requester's intent and motives generally did not affect the disclosure analysis.

Common questions

Q: Are reference names and phone numbers on a city job application public?

The reference names cannot be redacted under the opinion. A nonelected city public employee reference's personal contact information in employer records should be redacted. A private-sector reference's personal contact information, such as an address or telephone number, is not exempt under the FOIA analysis given here.

Q: Can a city redact other employees' names and salaries from a salary-adjustment memorandum?

The AG said the names, job positions, salary information, and equity scores in the memorandum were not exempt, even when they concerned employees other than Chism. Employee numbers or identification codes in the same record should be redacted.

Q: Why did the AG say the performance reviews should be withheld?

The reviews were employee-evaluation records. The AG said the first two required disclosure conditions, suspension or termination and administrative finality, were not met. All four conditions must be met before those records can be released.

Q: Does a FOIA requester's motive change what the city can release?

Generally no. The opinion says the requester's intent and motives are generally irrelevant when deciding whether public records must be disclosed.

Q: Did the AG approve every proposed redaction?

No. He received only redacted copies and said he could not determine whether certain redaction decisions were consistent with FOIA. He identified specific categories that should be disclosed or redacted and asked the custodian to review the documents for consistency.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion identifies three basic questions for a FOIA request: whether the recipient is subject to FOIA, whether the requested document is a public record, and whether an exemption applies. It says the first two appeared to be met for the records reviewed and then analyzes exemptions.

Personnel records and employee-evaluation or job-performance records have different disclosure rules. The opinion treats employment, salary, and application materials as personnel records subject to disclosure with any required redactions. It treats the employee performance review documents as evaluation records that require all four conditions in A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(1). The AG found the first two conditions absent for these records.

The opinion also applies A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(13) to personal contact information of nonelected city public employee references contained in employer records. It distinguishes private-sector references, whose personal contact information is not exempt on that basis.

Citations

• A.C.A. § 25-19-103(7)(A)
• A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(11)
• A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(13)
• A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(1)
• A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)
• Legis. Joint Auditing Comm. v. Woosley, 291 Ark. 89, 91, 722 S.W.2d 581, 582 (1987)
• Pulaski Cnty. v. Ark. Democrat-Gazette, Inc., 370 Ark. 435, 440–41, 260 S.W.3d 718, 722 (2007)
• Thomas v. Hall, 2012 Ark. 66, at 8–9, 399 S.W.3d 387, 392
• Davis v. Van Buren Sch. Dist., 2019 Ark. App. 466, at 7–8, 572 S.W.3d 466, 471

Source

• Landing page: https://arkansasag.gov/divisions/opinions-foia/attorney-general-opinions-search/

Original opinion text

TIM GRIFFIN
ATTORNEY GENERAL

Opinion No. 2025-023

April 7, 2025

Ms. Lela Chism
Via email only: [email protected]

Dear Ms. Chism:

After someone requested a copy of your personnel file from the City of Little Rock, “including [your] application for employment,” and copies of any emails and attachments to or from any email account you have used for “official business” within the last three years, you requested an opinion from this Office about whether the custodian’s decisions are consistent with the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Your request is made as the subject of personnel and evaluation records under A.C.A. § 25-19- 105(c)(3)(B)(i).

I have been provided for review redacted copies of certain employee records,1 all of which the City of Little Rock’s custodian of records intends to disclose.2

You object both to the release of your references’ contact information (names, phone numbers, addresses, and emails) contained in your job applications and to whether the FOIA request “is of public interest” because of the requester’s intent.3

1
I have not been provided with unredacted copies of the records.
2
I have been provided three PDF files with the following file names: (1) a set labeled “Assistant Payroll Manager Job App_Redacted”; (2) “Payroll Specialist Job App_Redacted”; and (3) “Personnel File_Redacted.” 3 The objection concerning why the requestor is making a FOIA request or what the requestor intends to do with the requested documents is not a sufficient basis for the custodian to withhold the records from disclosure. This Office has consistently opined that, under the FOIA, the requester’s intent and motives are generally irrelevant when determining whether public records must be disclosed. E.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2023-051, 2014-094, 2011-095, 2006-118.

323 CENTER STREET, SU ITE 200
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201
Ms. Lela Chism
Opinion No. 2025-023
Page 2

RESPONSE

It is the statutory duty of this Office under A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B) to state whether a custodian’s decision to release “personnel or evaluation records” is consistent with the FOIA. The City of Little Rock’s custodian of records has determined that the records should be released with certain redactions. For reasons discussed in this opinion, the custodian’s decision to release these documents is partially consistent with the FOIA. Some additional information from personnel records is exempt from disclosure, and the employee performance review records should be withheld. I also note that I cannot determine whether the custodian’s decision to redact certain information is consistent with the FOIA because I was not provided with unredacted copies of the documents. As to your specific objections, references’ contact information should be disclosed under the FOIA and the requester’s intent and motives are generally irrelevant when determining whether public records must be disclosed.

DISCUSSION

1. General rules. A document must be released in response to a FOIA request if all three
   of the following elements are met. First, the FOIA request must be directed to an entity subject to the FOIA.4 Second, the requested document must constitute a public record.5 Third, the document must not be subject to an exemption.6

The first two elements appear to be met here. The request was made to the City of Little Rock, which is a public entity subject to the FOIA.7 And the records at issue appear to be public records.8 Because these records are held by a public entity, they are presumed to be public records,9 although that presumption is rebuttable.10 I have no information, however,

4
Legis. Joint Auditing Comm. v. Woosley, 291 Ark. 89, 91, 722 S.W.2d 581, 582 (1987).
5
Id.
6
Id.

7
See, e.g., A.C.A. § 25-19-103(7)(A) (including “a public official or employee” or “a governmental agency”).
8
The FOIA defines public records as “writings, recorded sounds, films, tapes, electronic or computer-based information, or data compilations in any medium, required by law to be kept or otherwise kept, and that constitute a record of the performance or lack of performance of official functions … carried out by a public official or employee.” A.C.A. § 25-19-103(7)(A). 9 Id.
10
See Pulaski Cnty. v. Ark. Democrat-Gazette, Inc., 370 Ark. 435, 440–41, 260 S.W.3d 718, 722 (2007) (“[T]he presumption of public record status established by the FOIA can be rebutted if the records do not otherwise fall within the definition found in the first sentence, i.e., if they do not ‘constitute a record of the performance or lack of performance of official functions.”’ (quoting Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2005-095)). Ms. Lela Chism Opinion No. 2025-023 Page 3

to suggest that the presumption can be rebutted, and I will thus turn to whether any exemptions prevent the documents’ release.

For purposes of the FOIA, employees’ personnel files11 normally contain two distinct groups of records: “personnel records” and “employee-evaluation or job-performance records.” The test for whether these two types of documents may be released differs significantly. When reviewing documents to determine whether to release under the FOIA, the custodian must first decide whether a record meets the definition of either a “personnel record” or an “employee-evaluation or job-performance record” and then apply the appropriate test for that record to determine whether the record should be released under the FOIA.

2. Personnel records. This Office has consistently opined that the following are personnel
   records subject to disclosure under the FOIA: documents that confirm someone’s employment;12 dates of hire;13 general education background, including schools attended and degrees received;14 training and certifications;15 job titles;16 employment contracts;17 and employee names,18 salaries,19 payroll records,20 and salary information such as non- performance-based raises.21 Therefore, the custodian’s decision to release such administrative records as “personnel records” is consistent with the FOIA.

Even if a document, when considered as a whole, meets the test for disclosure, it may contain pieces of information that must be redacted, such as personal contact information

11
“Personnel files” are not referenced in the FOIA but typically includes the following documents: employment applications; school transcripts; payroll-related documents such as information about reclassifications, promotions, or demotions; transfer records; health- and life-insurance forms; performance evaluations; recommendation letters; disciplinary-action records; requests for leave-without-pay; certificates of advanced training or education; and legal documents such as subpoenas. E.g. Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2016-104, 97-368; John J. Watkins et al., The Arkansas Freedom of Information Act 203–04 (6th ed. 2017).. 12 Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 97-063, 97-063.
13
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2016-103, 95-256.
14
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2016-124, 2015-034, 2008-082, 2006-176.
15
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2002-252 (training), 2006-165 (educational background), 96-256 (certifications).
16
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 95-012, 91-351.
17
Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 93-337.
18
Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2009-156.
19
Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2002-159.
20
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2008-129, 94-198.
21
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2018-093, 2015-016, 2013-066, 2011-045, 2007-070.
Ms. Lela Chism
Opinion No. 2025-023
Page 4

of public employees (including personal phone numbers, email addresses, and home addresses),22 employee personnel numbers or identification codes;23 marital status of public employees;24 dates of birth of public employees;25 social security numbers;26 driver’s license numbers;27 insurance coverage;28 tax information or withholdings;29 payroll deductions;30 net pay;31 banking information;32 and other financial “records that would divulge intimate financial detail.”33

The May 10, 2021 Memorandum from the Chief Financial Officer to the Mayor concerning “Request for Salary Adjustments” has redacted information for other employees that has not also been redacted for your information. Names, job positions, salary information, and equity scores are not exempt under the FOIA, so that information should not be redacted, even if such information pertains to employees who are not you. Additionally, to the extent that the numbers under the “employee” column are employee numbers or identification codes, such numbers should be redacted.

If the “Immediate Supervisor Code” on the Status Change Forms is an employee personnel number or identification code, it should be redacted.

The custodian should review these records to ensure consistency in redactions. Because I have only been provided copies of redacted documents, I cannot conclude whether redactions were properly made.

22
A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(13).
23
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2022-032, 2014-094, 2007-070. Public employee personnel numbers are exempt from disclosure because “these numbers presumably provide access to computerized data, and records containing ‘personal identification numbers’ used for computer security functions are specifically exempt from disclosure under the FOIA.” Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2022-032; see also A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(11). 24 Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2001-080.
25
Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2007-064.
26
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2006-035, 2003-153.
27
Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2007-025.
28
Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2004-167.
29
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2005-194, 2003-385.
30
Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 98-126.
31
E.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2018-064, 2018-015, 2002-043, 98-126.
32
Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2005-194.
33
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2005-194, 98-126, 95-242, 95-110, 94-235, 91-093, 87-422.
Ms. Lela Chism
Opinion No. 2025-023
Page 5

3. Employee application records. This Office has consistently opined that the successful
   job applicant’s name, identifying characteristics, interview scores, résumés, and applications qualify as “personnel records” under the FOIA.34 The “NEOGOV – Application Detail” résumé forms and two duplicate copies of employment applications for the position of “Assistant Payroll Manager” are best classified as personnel records and should be disclosed.35 Thus, the custodian’s decision to disclose the application records is consistent with the FOIA. But the custodian should review these documents to ensure exempted information is properly redacted.36

The names of job references listed on either a résumé or job application are subject to disclosure under the FOIA and cannot be redacted.37 If a job reference is a nonelected city public employee, and their personal contact information is “contained in employer records,”38 then such personal contact information should be redacted. But if the job reference is employed in the private sector, his or her personal contact information—such as addresses and telephone numbers—are not exempt from disclosure.39

The “NEOGOV – Application Detail” résumé forms contain inconsistent redactions: one form redacts the “Person ID” while two of the forms do not. The custodian will need to review these documents to ensure that the proper redactions are made consistently. Because I have only been provided copies of redacted documents, I cannot conclude whether redactions were properly made.

4. Employee performance review documents. An employee-evaluation record is a record
   created by or at the behest of an employer; to evaluate the employee; and that details the employee’s performance or lack of performance on the job.40 The employee performance review documents here—the performance evaluation forms and the “Employee/Individual Contributor Performance Development” form—meet those requirements and must be withheld unless all the following elements have been met:

34
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2014-127, 2012-146, 2009-156, 2009-096, 2009-032, 2005-086, 2005-004, 2003- 015, 98-101, 97-042, 96-142. 35 See Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2018-145, 2016-043, 2009-032.
36
Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2009-032.
37
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2016-129, 2005-131, 2001-368, 2001-080.
38
See A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(13).
39
See Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2016-129, 2015-008, 2010-070, 2005-131.
40
Thomas v. Hall, 2012 Ark. 66, at 8–9, 399 S.W.3d 387, 392; see also Davis v. Van Buren Sch. Dist., 2019 Ark. App. 466, at 7–8, 572 S.W.3d 466, 471 (noting that “[o]ur supreme court has approved” the definition of employee-evaluation records developed by the Attorney General’s Office); Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2015- 057, 2009-067, 2006-038, 2003-073, 95-351, and 93-055. Ms. Lela Chism Opinion No. 2025-023 Page 6

• Suspension or termination. The employee was suspended or terminated;

• Administrative finality. The suspension or termination is administratively final and is, therefore, incapable of any administrative reversal or modification;

• Relevance. The records in question formed a basis for the decision to suspend or terminate the employee; and

• Compelling interest. The public has a compelling interest in the disclosure of the records in question.41

Because the first two elements are not met, these documents should be withheld.

Assistant Attorney General William R. Olson prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve.

Sincerely,

TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General

41
A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(1).